Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Customer Service | Contact Us | Routes Available | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Cuts must be part of the plan

January 29, 2013

Conservatives in the House of Representatives really had no choice but to postpone debate over increasing the national debt ceiling, as they voted last week to do....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(138)

muleskinner

Jan-29-13 7:15 AM

The best laid schemes of mice and men often go awry.

Plan? What plan? There is no plan.

The Republicans solve the crises they created? Gimme a break, they'll just shift the costs to the folks who can pay for it, and that would be you. If anybody is going to have to make any cuts, it will be you.

Let President Obama have control? You would have to be crazy.

The debt is a death of a thousand cuts.

Here's an idea: Let's go back to being a constitutional republic, abide by the Constitution and do what it says to do.

Right now, the Constitution is just a piece of paper with some words that carry no weight and have no real meaning.

The gov could care less about the the Constitution.

Or, does returning to a constitutional republic make too much sense?

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Jan-29-13 8:51 AM

Only in an alternate universe can you rack up bills with no hope or eal intention of paying them.

And that's Democrat and Republican alike.

"Cuts must be part of the plan" has WAY too much common sense to be considered in DC today.

It's a party and they'll spend if they want to...

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WorriedAmerican

Jan-29-13 10:48 AM

Cuts must be part of plan and that must include the state of ND. and all the other states that can afford to cut back from the federal welfare.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Jan-29-13 3:38 PM

"New castrati?"

Whaat?

The subject was about "cuts" being part of the plan, but isn't that taking it a little far...

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Jan-29-13 4:54 PM

"Body image, and the links between "befriending your body" and experiencing physical pleasure"

"An opportunity to talk openly in small groups during part of the program"

"umn.edu/thefemaleo"

All in the UofM female program that Jack talked about.

So where's Title IX when you need it...

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WorriedAmerican

Jan-30-13 9:03 AM

I want to see the specifics of these spending cuts that these conservatives want to cut. Put them out there if they want the people to support it we need to know what they are!

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WorriedAmerican

Jan-30-13 10:33 AM

lorexxx why hasn't the house pushed these cuts through instead of all these stupid abortion and planned parenthood obstruction bills they did the past four years?

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WorriedAmerican

Jan-30-13 11:35 AM

lorexxx that is why the conservatives need to come up with a more compromised bill that will pass to move this country forward. If they do not the republican party looks like the obstructionist party of the past and will continue to lose more public support and more elections!

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WorriedAmerican

Jan-30-13 11:58 AM

lorexxx everything on the internet and Fox news is the truth RIGHT!

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Jan-30-13 1:25 PM

Thanks for posting the list, lorexxx.

At first glance, there were a couple programs that I thought might be worth keeping, but whoa! what was I doing?

That's just the thought process that cannot continue!! "What about my (fill-in-the-blank)? Whatever will I do without its funding?"

Cutting means sacrificing for the good of the country. Literally. If we don't have the money, we don't even have the luxury of deciding what's worthwhile.

If these programs are so wonderful, and there is a desire for them to continue, then the private sector will have to invest and pick them up. (And yeah, for a profit, but that's a discussion for another day.)

Talk about Obesity! Our government system is woefully, abysmally obese in its funding desires, and when Dr. Common Sense says "you must trim the fat" it says "no way! I need it all! how could anyone do with less!" et cetera, and so on.

The current fiscal discussions at the DC level are not based in reality

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Jan-30-13 1:30 PM

"Losers don't get to decide what the plan is.

When you win an election -- you can dictate the plans."

So whenever any Republican presidential candidate was elected, it was right that his plans were fully implemented, ala dictating them? With no exceptions?

According to this logic, then the drumbeat of liberals concerning all things legislated/executed during the Bush years has been absolutely wrong.

Waiting for that apology...not.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Jan-30-13 2:38 PM

Rajj, no one disputes that the Federal budget is large. It is.

So what should be the point? WHY is the Federal government spending money on (fill-in-the-blank) program, study, development, center, grant, administration, etc., etc., ad nauseum?

Will we EVER in our lifetime see the Federal government getting smaller? Or putting a stop to the "spending more than taking in" mentality?

You did state the obvious: cutting government programs will affect the economy, because the government has its fingers in so much of it. To me, that's an unfortunate reality we live with every single day, ala regulations, taxes, fees, and so on.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Jan-30-13 2:52 PM

OK, back to the original quote:

"Losers don't get to decide what the plan is. When you win an election -- you can dictate the plans. Until then, you're just flapping your yapper."

PJ was addressing lorexxx's point about Sen. Reid's not bringing up passed House bills in the Senate.

I guess it was my bad to think the quote could have included Rep. or Dem. presidential elections.

Instead, PJ's point could have been more about those who kept the Democrat majority in the Senate. They, by their leader Sen. Reid, get to "dictate the plans"--not any wascally wepublicans in any old House, no sir. Any bills enacted by that old branch of government can just sit on a desk somewhere.

Maybe this conclusion is more to your liking, rajj?

Otherwise, provide one of your own.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Jan-30-13 4:14 PM

Sure, there's room in the wholesome, compassionate, large-hearted Democrat party for Americans.

But only the right kind of Americans.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Jan-30-13 5:18 PM

Jack, the term "all-purpose scapegoats" comes to mind when reading your post about the hapless Republicans in DC.

Aren't you proud?

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Jan-30-13 5:33 PM

Ask WorriedAmerican if c/p is hard work or not...

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Jan-30-13 7:26 PM

So what is it PJ?

Defense stays funded? Or defense gets cut?

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Jan-31-13 12:06 AM

Yeah, it's me and not that stage hog, Jack.

Interesting replies, Veritas. Who ever said "platforms" translate into reality very well?

That DNC vote to include the mention of God in the Democrat platform? Sure, every convention attendee agreed wholeheartedly with that one, didn't they?

I view platforms as the ideals of a party, goals to strive for. As far as mentioning God at the next big DNC, I would consider that a worthwhile goal.

The perfect candidate? So for you, was that the 2012 election winner, President Obama? If so, it's a given that all future candidates will be lacking somehow.

Well, I haven't found a perfect candidate yet. And if I ever think I have, I should be put away. Fast.

They're all human, y'know. Every last one of them. Even those likeable ones.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Jan-31-13 8:02 AM

Veritas, glad you haven't found a perfect candidate either. On that, we agree.

As far as mentioning God, I did find the 2012 DNC incident surprising. It looked like a majority of attendees were not in favor of the motion, yet somehow it passed, and the official Dem platform would include mentioning God. I brought it up as some media sources found it newsworthy and/or interesting, as did I.

"Better off finding a true political ideology to debate..."

To some, a true political ideology does include a mention or acknowledgment of God, though "emotional" it might be. And to some, it is still worthy of entering the public debate. Many politicians think that way as yet, including Democrats.

And if you think I might actually know the next imperfect Republican candidate, in order to name him/her, you give me far more insider credit than I could possibly deserve.

But thanks and have a great day

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WorriedAmerican

Jan-31-13 12:17 PM

lorexxx maybe you should post more facts about where Barack Obama lived as a child and how much welfare he was on?

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WorriedAmerican

Jan-31-13 12:41 PM

lorexxx likes to use lies and distortions to try and defend the republican party's disasterous failures that has led us to where we are today. His constant attacks and lies about President Obama being on welfare proves that. Look it up and it will prove to you all that he is a liar.

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Jan-31-13 5:14 PM

"To some, a true political ideology does include a mention or acknowledgment of God, though "emotional" it might be."

"Again loco...I don't understand this statement...Is there something in The Constitution I missed where we, as a nation have a civic duty to come to an understanding of Gods role in governing this country? Please tell me where this exists in constitutional requirement>"

Veritas, so a party platform has to pass constitutional muster somehow? As in whether the constitution says it's OK to mention or acknowledge God?

Interesting segue from my issue into yours, but I don't think your point matters much to present political parties. That is, if their platform items are "constitutional."

Recall that I said mentioning God is important to "some." Nowhere did I say that "we, as a nation have a civic duty to come to an understanding of Gods role in governing this country."

That was all your statement. You

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Jan-31-13 5:37 PM

Veritas, you can explain it how you see fit.

So many words, so little space...

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Jan-31-13 5:40 PM

"locothelorexxxenabler, I don't like what you just wrote. I know you have a lot of experience in these matters, so should I keep hitting the report abuse button or call the MDN directly?"

Mr. Bill, you can do whatever warms up your little ol' heart.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Jan-31-13 5:42 PM

"lottsaluck, Loco is the censor. He decides what remains. Kinda cowardly."

C'mon, Bill, you're just flattering me. You don't really mean a thing you say about me, do you?

After all, I've only got one finger. Like you said.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 138 comments Show More Comments
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web